Before
Sercombe, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and DeHoog,
Judge.

Case
Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of nine
crimes, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his
motion for judgment of acquittal and entering convictions on
four counts of attempted aggravated murder, three counts of
attempted murder, and two counts of tampering with a witness.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his
motion for judgment of acquittal on those counts, because
defendant did not take a substantial step toward the
commission of each of those crimes, and thus cannot be guilty
of attempt. Held: Viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the state, a reasonable factfinder could
conclude that defendant's conduct constituted a
substantial step toward the commission of aggravated murder,
murder, and tampering with a witness. As a result, the trial
court did not err in denying defendant's motion for
judgment of acquittal.

TOOKEY, J.

Defendant
appeals a judgment convicting him of nine crimes, contending
that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment
of acquittal and entering convictions on four counts of
attempted aggravated murder (Counts 1 through 4), three
counts of attempted murder (Counts 5 through 7), and two
counts of tampering with a witness (Counts 15 and
16).[1]
Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his
motion for judgment of acquittal on those counts, because
defendant did not take a substantial step toward the
commission of each of those crimes, and thus cannot be guilty
of attempt. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

In
reviewing a trial court's denial of a defendant's
motion for judgment of acquittal, "[w]e view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the state to
determine whether a rational trier of fact, making reasonable
inferences, could have found the essential elements of the
crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt." State v.
Hall. 327 Or 568, 570, 966 P.2d 208 (1998).

Defendant
was incarcerated pending prosecution on a burglary charge.
Defendant became cellmates with another inmate, Crowley.
Defendant told Crowley that defendant "wanted his
witnesses [to his burglary case] to not show up to trial,
" and that "he wanted people dead."
Specifically, defendant mentioned his father-in-law,
brother-in-law, and the Wasco County District Attorney.
Defendant asked Crowley whether Crowley knew of anyone who
had killed a person before. Crowley responded, "Yeah, I
have. I mean, I've been to prison. I mean, I know people
that have killed people." Defendant asked whether
Crowley "could have somebody killed" and Crowley
responded affirmatively. In fact, Crowley did not know of
such a person. After hearing that Crowley "might know
somebody that could do something, " defendant began
"writing stuff, " including writing people's
names. Within hours, Crowley sent several inmate request
forms to jail staff, asking to speak to detectives because
"someone could get hurt." Sergeant Birchfield
visited Crowley, and Crowley told Birchfield what defendant
had said.

When
Crowley returned to his cell, defendant was writing a letter.
According to Crowley, defendant "wrote out a couple
letters, and he wanted to get it perfect. His detail about it
had to be perfect." When defendant finished writing the
letter, he gave it to Crowley to read, then put the letter in
an envelope, placed it underneath his mattress, and asked
Crowley if he was a cop. The next morning, defendant gave
Crowley the envelope. Defendant believed that Crowley would
"put [the envelope in Crowley's personal]
property" and release it to someone outside the prison
"so that a hit man could get it for [defendant] and take
care of what he wanted [taken] care of."[2] The envelope
contained a map of defendant's father-in-law's house
and a letter stating:

"Dear stranger,

"I have a job for you. I need your help. There are three
people I need taken care of. First one is my father-in-law.
*** Second is my brother-in-law. *** The third is the D.A.
(District Attorney). He is a piece of shit, and tears
families apart. He is just as crooked as the cops in this
town. *** [My father-in-law] is leaving town October 15 for
two [and a] half weeks. [Father-in-law] - Age 64 - address *
* * -health - bad - has had a [triple] bypass 15 years ago -
takes handful of pills a day. (Dead) Net worth 150, 000 to
200, 000 dollars life insurance policy. Not sure [of the]
value.

"[Brother-in-law] - Age 36 - address - halfway house in
Oregon or Washington/Life insurance 100, 000 to 150, 000. He
is a recovering meth addict. Liked doing his meth through a
[syringe]. (Dead) "D.A. (District Attorney) - [first and
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.